Massive File Size Hate Thread

When did developers start doing this?

  • The game was rigged from the start.

    Votes: 22 19.3%
  • 1990s

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • 2000s

    Votes: 4 3.5%
  • 2010s

    Votes: 76 66.7%
  • 2020s

    Votes: 11 9.6%

  • Total voters
    114

Black Man Underwear

bix nood mufugguh
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 4, 2022
All it takes is a few minutes browsing Steam or torrent sites to notice. Every game is massively oversized.

Singleplayer only Grand Theft Auto V is 122 gb.
Unmodded Fallout 4 is 90 gb.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 is 150 gb.
Cyberpunk 2077 is 150 gb.
Spider-Man is 80 gb.
Red Dead Redemption 2 is 120 gb, a sequel 12x bigger than the original.
Every Call of Duty release ranges from 150-300 gb.
Forza Horizon 5 released at 175 gb.

What happened?

Nobody likes this and it needs to stop. Skyrim was 4 gb at release. Even Special Edition is about 20 gb.
 
Last edited:
This is only a problem if you're a retard who has to have every single game in his library installed all at the same time.

Well the thing is: When game sizes grows faster than your SSD size, they also grow faster than your Internet bandwidth. So you are just moving the capacity problem around.
 
The only games I can understand are the Halo: Master Chief Collection at 120+GB and the Mass Effect Legendary Collection at 120+GB because they contain 3-6 complete games.

Grand Theft Auto V's 122 gb is 60% Multiplayer content

I'd say its Mainly CDs and Blurays going the way of the dinosaur as well as better internet speeds and increased Hard Drive Storage so naturally compression is a lost talent over time.
 
Unrealslop 5 demake Talos Principle: 75 GB
I am still so fucking disappointed in Talos Principle 2 it was actual garbage. A few of the new tools were kinda cool I suppose but the story was unbelievably crap compared to the first one
 
Another part of it is things like DirectStorage / RTX IO, which only exist because assets are huge, and exist to support even huger assets.

These technologies require that the assets be stored on disk in either uncompressed, or weakly compressed format, in order to stream them to the GPU faster, however, since they're compressed like shit (or not at all), they can be multiple times the size of a properly compressed asset.
 
I would say Fuck call of duty, we have 100gb blu-ray discs now and there is no one minding a second 100gb disc if needed (remember rdrd2?) its just fucking greed to want to release all shit digital, and let the customer own nothing.
 
This is only a problem if you're a retard who has to have every single game in his library installed all at the same time.

There was a dark time when hard disks had less than 40MB and your gaming library involved lots of floppy disks through save files and re-installations. At some point, the optical disc drive appeared and still installed files, but the removable media did the heavy lifting, even for multi-disc games in the 1990s. Unless you insisted on having disc images for every game or bought/pirated every game as they came out you would fit things on the disk easy. It remained that way, even as Steam gained prominence in the late 2000s and early 2010s.

There is no reason to have 100GB+ installs and no reason to drag us back into the dark ages of "games can't fit on the hard disk".
 
Bloat got much worse when when consoles/videos started outgrowing DVDs. Games like Current Year of Duty try to be the only game can fit on a drive. Combine that with constant patches "as a service" and many will stick with whatever they invested in.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: byuuWasTaken
Uncompressed audio files are also to blame. We’ve reached the point in the “improvement” of audio quality where the difference is literally outside the range of human perception and yet it takes up tons more storage space than it used to. For games in which every line of dialogue is voice acted in multiple languages, this adds up insanely fast.
 
Back